My understanding is change towards a more egalitarian regarding the sexes status was the issue being discussed. That was my understanding as that is what is currently being considered legislatively. I may be incorrect.
Camilla and The Public
- Thread starter Duchess
- Start date
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Cris M
Courtier
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2014
- Messages
- 826
- City
- Niterói
- Country
- Brazil
I understand. But I want to know what needs to be changed. The title of the woman who is married to the King? Will Camilla, Catherine and George's wife all be called Princesses Consorts?
Skippyboo
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,154
- City
- Atlanta
- Country
- United States
You change it for one, it changes for all. No Duchess to Dukes, Princess to Princes, Sir to Lady. In the future, it's HM King George VII and Ms. Olivia Smith.
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Cris M
Courtier
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2014
- Messages
- 826
- City
- Niterói
- Country
- Brazil
Call me outdated, but what a sad prospect.
. That is a very interesting question and I believe that the situation may change during the duration of this Parliament.
Skippyboo
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,154
- City
- Atlanta
- Country
- United States
What in parliament is a bill that would allow a eldest child to inherit a title instead of eldest male. The wife taking the style and title of husband is UK common law and not in debate in parliament as far as I know
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Skippyboo first chance I get I will hit Hansards and the law books and get back to you but my understanding is that in English law there is no such thing as Common Law wife or Common Law husband and nothing to state that a wife take her husband's name.
Pranter
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 12,309
- City
- Midwest
- Country
- United States
If memory serves, in the past, the wife of the king is not automatically the queen. She had to actually be named and go thru the ceremony....
At what point did this change?
LaRae
At what point did this change?
LaRae
Skippyboo
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,154
- City
- Atlanta
- Country
- United States
Not common law wife or husband, common law - law based on historical customs and traditions and judicial precedents not statues
http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/explanation/why-isnt-prince-philip-king-22725
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
. This could be because I am reading from my phone but I see no mention of Hansard Reports or the authors legal qualification so I will have a check on the Hansard Reports and law books, first chance I get. Thanks for that.
No change it for all not just Charles wife.
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Roslyn
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 4,140
- City
- Tintenbar
- Country
- Australia
Around 1066, I think.
There is no law requiring a woman to take her husband's surname. It was just an incident of coverture.
Sounds good to me.
Though I think it highly unlikely that any king's consort would be simply Ms, or even Mrs. I think it would be reasonable for them to be created a Duchess or Princess or something in their own right. I think Princess Consort would be a good idea. And a male consort would be Prince Consort.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skippyboo
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,154
- City
- Atlanta
- Country
- United States
Not talking about surnames but style and title. The HRH Duchess of Kent goes by Katherine Kent but she is still HRH The Duchess of Kent.
Camilla can wake up and decide that she is sick of Royal life and retires to Ray Mill House and is going to go by Camilla Mountbatten Windsor or even her maiden name. She is still technically the female counterparts to all of Charles's titles whether she uses them or not.
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Skippyboo
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,154
- City
- Atlanta
- Country
- United States
Exactly because she is married to the Duke of Kent. So the same thing applies to Camilla. She becomes Queen because she is married to the King. Charles as King can still create her Princess Consort through a LP but she is still Queen whether she uses it or not. Just like now Camilla is Princess of Wales but she doesn't go by that. It's still her title.
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Well she could use her maiden name, she is from a very distinguished family. There is no legal imperative for her to use her husband's name but there is also a possibility of their being issues with the current D.O.C becoming Queen. Why does she not currently use the Princess of Wales title?
Pranter
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 12,309
- City
- Midwest
- Country
- United States
No it was well after that, the kings wife had to go thru the coronation ceremony before she was named queen (at the king's direction). Just marrying the king didn't 'crown' her.
LaRae
Iluvbertie
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,459
- City
- Bathurst
- Country
- Australia
Creating her a Princess in her own right would be to demote her from the title of Queen however.
Not using one of Charles' titles - as she does now - is different to not using the only title a person has. Her alternatives are really her maiden name - Miss Camilla Shand, or Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor or The Queen. Otherwise she isn't using a name from her own birth or her marriage to Charles.
Princess Consort would be a clear demotion to an unequal position to her husband and thus a morganatic marriage - which is was argued in 1936 wasn't possible in the UK.
Well it is heading towards a century ago and the country has changed a tad.
Yes things do seem to be outdated in many countries, but if they don't want to change them themselves, there is really nothing the rest of us can do. I know that some countries only have the husband's name on the deed to their homes. This to me is degrading to the wife but that is just the way their country sees it.
It was, also, argued that he couldn't marry a divorced woman, with living husbands.
RoyaltyPortuguese
Gentry
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2015
- Messages
- 75
- City
- Lisboa
- Country
- Portugal
I think Camilla will be Queen. Charles will want his wife to have the title of Queen Consort, I'm sure of that, and that's what makes the most sense.
MARG
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2005
- Messages
- 10,598
- City
- Christchurch
- Country
- New Zealand
If Charles is my King, Camilla will be my Queen. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.
Last edited:
Historically, there have only been a few wives of English kings who were never crowned Queen Consort. They were all known as the Queen, though.
King Henry VII, who won the throne by conquest of course, delayed his wife Elizabeth's Coronation till two years after his own, in 1485.
Only the first two of Henry VIII's six wives were crowned Queen Consort.
Charles I and Charles II's wives were Roman Catholic and could not take part in the Anglican Coronation ritual.
King Henry VII, who won the throne by conquest of course, delayed his wife Elizabeth's Coronation till two years after his own, in 1485.
Only the first two of Henry VIII's six wives were crowned Queen Consort.
Charles I and Charles II's wives were Roman Catholic and could not take part in the Anglican Coronation ritual.
When a man marries a princess or a queen, does he take his wife's rank?
When a man marries a princess or a queen, he does not take his wife's rank and become automatically a prince or a king. In (English) common law a man retains his name upon marriage.
Conversely, when a woman marries a prince or a king, she becomes automatically a princess or a queen; this is in keeping with (English) common Law whereby a woman is entitled to her husband's name.
If the husband of a queen were permitted to be known as king, he would then technically rank higher than his wife the queen.
The husband of a princess or a queen can have a peerage or a title conferred upon him by the Sovereign. ]
Three examples when a peerage or a title was bestowed on the spouse of a princess or a queen 1961: when Antony Armstrong-Jones, husband of HRH Princess Margaret, was created a peer when he was made Earl of Snowdon on 6 October 1961 (Antony and Margaret had been married since 6 May 1960)
1947: when Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, husband of HRH Princess Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth II), was created a peer when he was made Duke of Edinburgh on 20 November 1947 the day of his wedding (N.B.: Philip received the style Royal Highness the day before on 19 November, and was made a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 22 February 1957)#
#
When a woman marries a prince, why does she use her husband's Christian name in her title instead of her own name?#
1857: when Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, husband of Queen Victoria, was granted the title Prince Consort on 26 June 1857 (N.B.: Albert received the style Royal Highness on 6 February 1840 four days before his marriage)
It is worth noting that the British Constitution does not make any provision for the position of a husband to a Queen (see the question:A man who marries a princess who later becomes queen or who marries a queen regnant, does not become king. Queen Victoria succinctly summarized the situation:
'It is a strange omission in our Constitution that while the wife of a King has the highest rank and dignity in the realm after her husband assigned to her by law, the husband of a Queen regnant is entirely ignored by the law
The wife of a prince takes her husband's Christian name in her title as do all married royal women. This is because it is the correct style for any married woman ('Mrs' followed by her husband's Christian name and then his surname.) When a woman is known as 'HRH Princess [her Christian name] of [Gloucester, or Great Britain, or Kent, or York, etc...]', this indicates she is a princess by birth. When a woman is known as 'HRH Princess [her husband's Christian name] of [Gloucester, or Great Britain, or Kent, or York, etc...]', this indicates she is a princess by marriage. That is why it is correct for the former Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz to be known as 'HRH Princess Michael of Kent' instead of being known as 'HRH Princess Marie-Christine of Kent'.
The situation is slightly different when a woman is married to a prince who happens to be a royal duke or the Prince of Wales. When a woman is married to a royal duke she is known, for example, as 'HRH The Duchess of Kent', not 'HRH Duchess [her husband's or her Christian name] of Kent'. When a woman is married to the Prince of Wales, she is known as 'HRH The Princess of Wales', not 'HRH Princess [her husband's or her Christian name] of Wales'.
The ways of addressing royal women change once there is a divorce. In the case of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, Diana was entitled to 'HRH The Princess of Wales' while she and Charles were married. Following her divorce, Diana ceased to be both a Royal Highness and a princess because she was no longer married to a Royal Highness and prince. (These were hers only by marriage not by birthright.) Accordingly, Diana became known by the name 'Diana, Princess of Wales'.
In the case of Sarah, Duchess of York she was entitled to be known as 'HRH The Duchess of York' while she and Andrew were married. Following her divorce, she too ceased to be both a Royal Highness and a princess because she was no longer married to a Royal Highness and a prince. (Again, these were hers only by marriage not by birthright.) Sarah is therefore known by the name 'Sarah, Duchess of York'.
This style is common to divorced wives of British peers which was the situation in which Diana and Sarah were in August and May 1996, respectively. (Note, however, that Sarah is not addressed as 'Your Grace'
Last edited:
Osipi
Member - in Memoriam
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 17,267
- City
- On the west side of North up from Back
- Country
- United States
This is where a lot of people get totally mixed up. Most of the time these days with Sarah still being called The Duchess of York. With the divorced styling of Sarah, Duchess of York, it denotes that at one time Sarah did hold the title of The Duchess of York by being married to Andrew. The divorce styling which just says Duchess of York after her name denotes that she was at one time A Duchess of York. Theoretically, should Andrew remarry, his wife would be The Duchess of York while Sarah could still use the divorced styling of Sarah, Duchess of York.
Perhaps some of these discussions over titles should be moved to the British Title and Styles thread? There's probably a wealth more of information regarding titles and Camilla's title after ascension there also.
It's possible this link is somewhere in the thread already...
...but it's interesting enough to be repeated.
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2001/10/a-court-of-his-own-200110:bang:
John Bowes-Lyon, who was also at Tom’s wedding, told me that Camilla reminds him of the Queen Mother, who was a first cousin of his father’s. “The Queen Mother had such a sense of humor about herself and about everything that happened in her life. She was also totally foot-on-the-ground. She hated any pomposity. Camilla’s got the same sort of sense of humor and a very individual character. I’m sure as time goes on the British people will take her to their hearts. I’m not a clairvoyant, but I suppose, in the natural course of events, there’s nothing to stop her from becoming Queen.”
This is merely the last paragraph, but the whole article is definitely worth reading.
...but it's interesting enough to be repeated.
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2001/10/a-court-of-his-own-200110:bang:
John Bowes-Lyon, who was also at Tom’s wedding, told me that Camilla reminds him of the Queen Mother, who was a first cousin of his father’s. “The Queen Mother had such a sense of humor about herself and about everything that happened in her life. She was also totally foot-on-the-ground. She hated any pomposity. Camilla’s got the same sort of sense of humor and a very individual character. I’m sure as time goes on the British people will take her to their hearts. I’m not a clairvoyant, but I suppose, in the natural course of events, there’s nothing to stop her from becoming Queen.”
This is merely the last paragraph, but the whole article is definitely worth reading.
Osipi
Member - in Memoriam
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 17,267
- City
- On the west side of North up from Back
- Country
- United States
Sadly the link to the article has been taken down but y'know, I can completely agree with that last paragraph and the comparison of Camilla to QEQM. They do share quite a few similar traits. Perhaps this is what attracted Charles to her in the first place as he was very close to his grandmother.
When the public meets Camilla, they're meeting the real person and not a painted on facade persona. That's what endears her to people and wins them over. She's not afraid to be herself.
When the public meets Camilla, they're meeting the real person and not a painted on facade persona. That's what endears her to people and wins them over. She's not afraid to be herself.
Unfortunately the article was down. However, Charles and Camilla have been married for over a decade and the British people haven't taken her to their hearts to any great extent. Admittedly Camilla is more popular now with the British public than she was when she first married into the BRF, but she could scarcely do worse. Her poll figures are still dreadful and lag behind other senior royals by a mile.
I'm sure that personally Camilla is pleasant and jokey and good natured. However, a large proportion of the British people still don't want her as Queen Consort. She remains a divisive and controversial figure, even today. I could point to huge differences in moral character between Camilla and the Queen Mother, whom I greatly admired, but I won't.
I'm sure that personally Camilla is pleasant and jokey and good natured. However, a large proportion of the British people still don't want her as Queen Consort. She remains a divisive and controversial figure, even today. I could point to huge differences in moral character between Camilla and the Queen Mother, whom I greatly admired, but I won't.
Similar threads
- Sticky
